Cooling technologies affect price and cooling capacity, and there are a variety of fundamentally different dry cooling technologies available for cooling water/glycol mixtures. The decision for or against one of these technologies during the planning stage of a project has an impact not only directly on the investment sum but also on the subsequent operating costs of the plant across the entire life cycle.

“It is a really important decision you make,” said Michael Freiherr, chief technology officer for Guentner AG & Co. KG Guntner U.S., while speaking during IIAR’s annual meeting. That means it is critical to know the applications of the technologies, as well as their specific advantages and disadvantages, and to evaluate them carefully. “All of the different cooling technologies have very specific pros and cons,” Freiherr said.

During the session, Frieherr discussed several types of technologies, including dry, spray, adiabatic, and hybrid.

“It is a really important decision you make. … All of the different cooling technologies have very specific pros and cons.”

– Michael Freiherr, chief technology officer for Guentner AG & Co. KG Guntner U.S.

Dry Cooler: A dry coolant, as the name indicates, doesn’t use any water. “Whenever you have issues with water treatment or hygiene reasons, or topics like lachenalia, the dry cooler is the system of choice,” Frieherr said. “The downside is you need a large installation footprint for those types of units. If you don’t have the footprint available, you can switch to spray or water-consuming technologies.”

The dry cooler is the very best solution when it comes to water consumption because there is no water consumption, Frieherr explained. “The downside is you have bigger units compared to the wetted cooling technologies,” he said.

“For the wetted cooling technologies, you have to deal with the water treatment because there are some rules to deal with and you need different water qualities for the different types of wetted technologies,” he said. “If you deal with it and you take advantage of the wetted technology, there is a good portion of energy-saving and also cost-saving potential for you and your client.”

Spray Coolers: Sprayed is in many ways identical to a dry cooler but is prepared for peaks in capacity or temperature with the spray system. They increase the energy efficiency ratios compared to the dry coolers. Spray coolers don’t use as much water as the adiabatic or hybrid, but they can’t achieve the power in terms of water outlet temperature. “If you want to go down with the water temperature, you need the adiabatic, hybrid, or cooling tower,” Frieherr said.

However, water treatment is necessary for wetted cooling technologies, Frieherr said. “If you deal with it and you take advantage of the wetted technology, there is a good portion of energy-saving and also cost-saving potential for you and your client,” he said.

Adiabatic: Adiabatic utilizes ‘wetting pads’ in front of the heat exchanger. The water is not directly applied to the heat exchanger itself but is evaporated on the wetting pads in the airstream before the air hits the heat exchanger. It can use lower quality water.

Hybrid: The hybrid dry cooler is fully optimized for long periods in wet operation. It has the lowest footprint of the systems. However, the hybrid uses the most water. “The lower you want to go with your temperatures, the more water you will need for your unit,” Frieherr said. Each system has different operating costs. “Typically, the lower the temperature the higher the operating costs,” Frieherr said.

As part of the case study, Frieherr said in the 104–113-degree Fahrenheit temperature range, the dry cooler had lower operating costs. However, for the 81-90-degree range, adiabatic had the lowest. “The operating costs are going down as your temperature goes down, but there are some specific differences. The hybrid dry coolers stand out on every temperature level,” he said.

However, sometimes there are other factors for engineers to consider when developing projects, such as the footprint. For example, in the 104-113 temperature range, the dry cooler would have a footprint needed of 411 square feet. “At this level, it doesn’t make sense to use spray or adiabatic due to cost, but it does if you need the space. Adiabatic is 151 square feet at this temperature level,” Frieherr said.

On the other units, in the 81–90-degree range, adiabatic needs 936 feet whereas hybrid needs 269 square feet. “If you really want to have a very cost or energy-efficient plant with a very limited footprint available, the hybrid dry cooler is probably your only choice,” Frieherr said.

The full session, From Dry to Hybrid: A 360 Degree View of Cooling Technologies, is available on IIAR’s Natural Refrigeration Conference & Expo website.